[agi] The same old explosions?
Essentially, Richard others are replaying the same old problems of computational explosions - see computational complexity in this history of cog. sci. review - no? Mechanical Mind Gilbert Harman Mind as Machine: A History of Cognitive Science. Margaret A. Boden. Two volumes, xlviii + 1631 pp. Oxford University Press, 2006. $225. The term cognitive science, which gained currency in the last half of the 20th century, is used to refer to the study of cognition-cognitive structures and processes in the mind or brain, mostly in people rather than, say, rats or insects. Cognitive science in this sense has reflected a growing rejection of behaviorism in favor of the study of mind and human information processing. The field includes the study of thinking, perception, emotion, creativity, language, consciousness and learning. Sometimes it has involved writing (or at least thinking about) computer programs that attempt to model mental processes or that provide tools such as spreadsheets, theorem provers, mathematical-equation solvers and engines for searching the Web. The programs might involve rules of inference or productions, mental models, connectionist neural networks or other sorts of parallel constraint satisfaction approaches. Cognitive science so understood includes cognitive neuroscience, artificial intelligence (AI), robotics and artificial life; conceptual, linguistic and moral development; and learning in humans, other animals and machines. click for full image and caption Among those sometimes identifying themselves as cognitive scientists are philosophers, computer scientists, psychologists, linguists, engineers, biologists, medical researchers and mathematicians. Some individual contributors to the field have had expertise in several of these more traditional disciplines. An excellent example is the philosopher, psychologist and computer scientist Margaret Boden, who founded the School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences at the University of Sussex and is the author of a number of books, including Artificial Intelligence and Natural Man (1977) and The Creative Mind (1990). Boden has been active in cognitive science pretty much from the start and has known many of the other central participants. In her latest book, the lively and interesting Mind as Machine: A History of Cognitive Science, the relevant machine is usually a computer, and the cognitive science is usually concerned with the sort of cognition that can be exhibited by a computer. Boden does not discuss other aspects of the subject, broadly conceived, such as the principles and parameters approach in contemporary linguistics or the psychology of heuristics and biases. Furthermore, she also puts to one side such mainstream developments in computer science as data mining and statistical learning theory. In the preface she characterizes the book as an essay expressing her view of cognitive science as a whole, a thumbnail sketch meant to be read entire rather than dipped into. It is fortunate that Mind as Machine is highly readable, particularly because it contains 1,452 pages of text, divided into two very large volumes. Because the references and indices (which fill an additional 179 pages) are at the end of the second volume, readers will need to have it on hand as they make their way through the first. Given that together these tomes weigh more than 7 pounds, this is not light reading! Boden's goal, she says, is to show how cognitive scientists have tried to find computational or informational answers to frequently asked questions about the mind-what it is, what it does, how it works, how it evolved, and how it's even possible. How do our brains generate consciousness? Are animals or newborn babies conscious? Can machines be conscious? If not, why not? How is free will possible, or creativity? How are the brain and mind different? What counts as a language? The first five chapters present the historical background of the field, delving into such topics as cybernetics and feedback, and discussing important figures such as René Descartes, Immanuel Kant, Charles Babbage, Alan Turing and John von Neumann, as well as Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts, who in 1943 cowrote a paper on propositional calculus, Turing machines and neuronal synapses. Boden also goes into some detail about the situation in psychology and biology during the transition from behaviorism to cognitive science, which she characterizes as a revolution. The metaphor she employs is that of cognitive scientists entering the house of Psychology, whose lodgers at the time included behaviorists, Freudians, Gestalt psychologists, Piagetians, ethologists and personality theorists. Chapter 6 introduces the founding personalities of cognitive science from the 1950s. George A. Miller, the first information-theoretic psychologist, wrote the widely cited paper The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two, in
Re: [agi] The same old explosions?
Mike Tintner wrote: Essentially, Richard others are replaying the same old problems of computational explosions - see computational complexity in this history of cog. sci. review - no? No: this is a misunderstanding of complexity unfortunately (cf the footnote on p1 of my AGIRI paper): computational complexity refers to how computations scale up, which is not at all the same as the complexity issue, which is about whether or not a particular system can be explained. To see the difference, imagine an algorithm that was good enough to be intelligent, but scaling it up to the size necessary for human-level intelligence would require a computer the size of a galaxy. Nothing wrong with the algorithm, and maybe with a quantum computer it would actually work. This algorithm would be suffering from a computational complexity problem. By contrast, there might be proposed algorithms for iimplementing a human-level intelligence which will never work, no matter how much they are scaled up (indeed, they may actually deteriorate as they are scaled up). If this was happening because the designers were not appreciating that they needed to make subtle and completely non-obvious changes in the algorithm, to get its high-level behavior to be what they wanted it to be, and if this were because intelligence requires complexity-generating processes inside the system, then this would be a complex systems problem. Two completely different issues. Richard Loosemore Mechanical Mind Gilbert Harman Mind as Machine: A History of Cognitive Science. Margaret A. Boden. Two volumes, xlviii + 1631 pp. Oxford University Press, 2006. $225. The term cognitive science, which gained currency in the last half of the 20th century, is used to refer to the study of cognition-cognitive structures and processes in the mind or brain, mostly in people rather than, say, rats or insects. Cognitive science in this sense has reflected a growing rejection of behaviorism in favor of the study of mind and human information processing. The field includes the study of thinking, perception, emotion, creativity, language, consciousness and learning. Sometimes it has involved writing (or at least thinking about) computer programs that attempt to model mental processes or that provide tools such as spreadsheets, theorem provers, mathematical-equation solvers and engines for searching the Web. The programs might involve rules of inference or productions, mental models, connectionist neural networks or other sorts of parallel constraint satisfaction approaches. Cognitive science so understood includes cognitive neuroscience, artificial intelligence (AI), robotics and artificial life; conceptual, linguistic and moral development; and learning in humans, other animals and machines. click for full image and caption Among those sometimes identifying themselves as cognitive scientists are philosophers, computer scientists, psychologists, linguists, engineers, biologists, medical researchers and mathematicians. Some individual contributors to the field have had expertise in several of these more traditional disciplines. An excellent example is the philosopher, psychologist and computer scientist Margaret Boden, who founded the School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences at the University of Sussex and is the author of a number of books, including Artificial Intelligence and Natural Man (1977) and The Creative Mind (1990). Boden has been active in cognitive science pretty much from the start and has known many of the other central participants. In her latest book, the lively and interesting Mind as Machine: A History of Cognitive Science, the relevant machine is usually a computer, and the cognitive science is usually concerned with the sort of cognition that can be exhibited by a computer. Boden does not discuss other aspects of the subject, broadly conceived, such as the principles and parameters approach in contemporary linguistics or the psychology of heuristics and biases. Furthermore, she also puts to one side such mainstream developments in computer science as data mining and statistical learning theory. In the preface she characterizes the book as an essay expressing her view of cognitive science as a whole, a thumbnail sketch meant to be read entire rather than dipped into. It is fortunate that Mind as Machine is highly readable, particularly because it contains 1,452 pages of text, divided into two very large volumes. Because the references and indices (which fill an additional 179 pages) are at the end of the second volume, readers will need to have it on hand as they make their way through the first. Given that together these tomes weigh more than 7 pounds, this is not light reading! Boden's goal, she says, is to show how cognitive scientists have tried to find computational or informational answers to frequently asked questions about the mind-what it is, what it
RE: [agi] AGI and Deity
Mike: MIKE TINTNER# Science's autistic, emotionally deprived, insanely rational nature in front of the supernatural (if it exists), and indeed the whole world, needs analysing just as much as the overemotional, underrational fantasies of the religious about the supernatural. ED PORTER# I like the metaphor of Science as Autistic. It emphasizes the emotional disconnect from human feeling science can have. I feel that rationality has no purpose other than to serve human values and feelings (once truly intelligent machines arrive on the scene that statement might have to be modified). As I think I have said on this list before, without values to guide them, the chance you would think anything that has anything to do with maintaining your own existence approaches zero as a limit, because of the possible combinatorial explosion of possible thoughts if they were not constrained by emotional guidance. Therefore, from the human standpoint, the main use of science should be to help serve our physical, emotional, and intellectual needs. I agree that science will increasingly encroach upon many areas previous considered the realm of the philosopher and priest. It has been doing so since at least the age of enlightenment, and it is continuing to do so, with advances in cosmology, theoretical physics, bioscience, brain science¸ and AGI. With the latter two we should pretty much understand the human soul within several decades. I hope we have the wisdom to use that new knowledge well. Ed Porter -Original Message- From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 11:07 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] AGI and Deity Ed:I would add that there probably is something to the phenomenon that John Rose is referring to, i.e., that faith seems to be valuable to many people. Perhaps it is somewhat like owning a lottery ticket before its drawing. It can offer desired hope, even if the hope might be unrealistic. But whatever you think of the odds, it is relatively clear that religion does makes some people's lives seem more meaningful to them. You realise of course that what you're seeing on this and the singularitarian board, over and over, is basically the same old religious fantasies - the same yearning for the Second Coming - the same old search for salvation - only in a modern, postreligious form? Everyone has the same basic questions about the nature of the world - everyone finds their own answers - which always in every case involve a mixture of faith and scepticism in the face of enormous mystery. The business of science in the face of these questions is not to ignore them, and try and psychoanalyse away people's attempts at answers, as a priori weird or linked to a deficiency of this or that faculty. The business of science is to start dealing with these questions - to find out if there is a God and what the hell that entails, - and not leave it up to philosophy. Science's autistic, emotionally deprived, insanely rational nature in front of the supernatural (if it exists), and indeed the whole world, needs analysing just as much as the overemotional, underrational fantasies of the religious about the supernatural. Science has fled from the question of God just as it has fled from the soul - in plain parlance, the self deliberating all the time in you and me, producing these posts and all our dialogues - only that self, for sure, exists and there is no excuse for science's refusal to study it in action, whatsoever. The religous 'see' too much; science is too heavily blinkered. But the walls between them - between their metaphysical worldviews - are starting to crumble.. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=74564905-9a5b41attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [agi] news bit: DRAM Appliance 10TB extended memory in one rack
Dave, Such large memories are cool, but of course AGI requires a lot of processing power to go with the memory. The price cited at the bottom of the below article for 120GB wasn’t that much less than the price for which would could by 128GB with 8 quad core opterons in one of the links you sent me last week. Ed Porter -Original Message- From: David Hart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 11:40 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: [agi] news bit: DRAM Appliance 10TB extended memory in one rack Hi, Some news with interesting implications for future AGI development, from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/10/amd_violin_memory/ - more at http://www.violin-memory.com/ 10TB of DRAM? Why not? By Ashlee Vance in Mountain View mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] → More by this author http://search.theregister.co.uk/?author=Ashlee%20Vance Published Monday 10th December 2007 17:06 GMT AMD and Violin Memory have ignited a love affair around Hypertransport that should result in what the industry technically refers to as huge DRAM appliances being connected to Opteron-based servers. Violin Memory Inc. had eluded us before today's announcement, which is either the fault of the company's PR staff or our lack of attention to e-mail. No matter. We've spotted this start-up now and don't plan to let go because it's banging away at one of the more intriguing bits of the server/storage game - MAS or memory attached storage. The company sells a Violin 1010 unit that holds up to 504GB of DRAM in a 2U box. Fill a rack, and you're looking at 10TB of DRAM. It should be noted that each appliance can support up to 84 virtual modules as well. Customers can create 6GB modules and add RAID-like functions between modules. The DRAM approach to storage is, of course, very expensive when compared to spinning disks, but does offer benefits such as lower power consumption and higher performance. Most of the start-ups dabbling in the MAS space - like Gear6 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/28/memory_appliance_gear6_cachefx/ - zero in on the performance gains and aim their gear at any company with a massive database. Now Violin plans to tap right into AMD's Hypertransport technology to link these memory appliances with servers. The cache coherency protocol of Hypertransport technology will enable several processors to share extensive memory resources from one or more Violin Memory Appliances. This extended memory model will enable these servers to support much larger datasets, the companies said. An AMD Opteron processor-based server connected to a HyperTransport technology-enabled Violin Memory Appliance will have both directly connected memory and Extended Memory resources. Directly connected memory can be selected for bandwidth and latency while the Extended Memory can be much larger and located in the Memory Appliance. Applications such as large databases will benefit from the large-scale memory footprints enabled through Extended Memory. The two companies expect these new systems to arrive by the second half of 2008. Those of you who want to try Violin's gear now can get a 120GB starter kit for $50,000. (r) This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=74565758-991587attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [agi] AGI and Deity
Hey Ben, Any chance of instituting some sort of moderation on this list? - Original Message - From: Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 10:18 AM Subject: RE: [agi] AGI and Deity Mike: MIKE TINTNER# Science's autistic, emotionally deprived, insanely rational nature in front of the supernatural (if it exists), and indeed the whole world, needs analysing just as much as the overemotional, underrational fantasies of the religious about the supernatural. ED PORTER# I like the metaphor of Science as Autistic. It emphasizes the emotional disconnect from human feeling science can have. I feel that rationality has no purpose other than to serve human values and feelings (once truly intelligent machines arrive on the scene that statement might have to be modified). As I think I have said on this list before, without values to guide them, the chance you would think anything that has anything to do with maintaining your own existence approaches zero as a limit, because of the possible combinatorial explosion of possible thoughts if they were not constrained by emotional guidance. Therefore, from the human standpoint, the main use of science should be to help serve our physical, emotional, and intellectual needs. I agree that science will increasingly encroach upon many areas previous considered the realm of the philosopher and priest. It has been doing so since at least the age of enlightenment, and it is continuing to do so, with advances in cosmology, theoretical physics, bioscience, brain science¸ and AGI. With the latter two we should pretty much understand the human soul within several decades. I hope we have the wisdom to use that new knowledge well. Ed Porter -Original Message- From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 11:07 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] AGI and Deity Ed:I would add that there probably is something to the phenomenon that John Rose is referring to, i.e., that faith seems to be valuable to many people. Perhaps it is somewhat like owning a lottery ticket before its drawing. It can offer desired hope, even if the hope might be unrealistic. But whatever you think of the odds, it is relatively clear that religion does makes some people's lives seem more meaningful to them. You realise of course that what you're seeing on this and the singularitarian board, over and over, is basically the same old religious fantasies - the same yearning for the Second Coming - the same old search for salvation - only in a modern, postreligious form? Everyone has the same basic questions about the nature of the world - everyone finds their own answers - which always in every case involve a mixture of faith and scepticism in the face of enormous mystery. The business of science in the face of these questions is not to ignore them, and try and psychoanalyse away people's attempts at answers, as a priori weird or linked to a deficiency of this or that faculty. The business of science is to start dealing with these questions - to find out if there is a God and what the hell that entails, - and not leave it up to philosophy. Science's autistic, emotionally deprived, insanely rational nature in front of the supernatural (if it exists), and indeed the whole world, needs analysing just as much as the overemotional, underrational fantasies of the religious about the supernatural. Science has fled from the question of God just as it has fled from the soul - in plain parlance, the self deliberating all the time in you and me, producing these posts and all our dialogues - only that self, for sure, exists and there is no excuse for science's refusal to study it in action, whatsoever. The religous 'see' too much; science is too heavily blinkered. But the walls between them - between their metaphysical worldviews - are starting to crumble.. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=74570767-eca623
Re: [agi] The same old explosions?
Self-organizing complexity and computational complexity are quite separate technical uses of the word complexity, though I do think there are subtle relationships. As an example of a relationship btw the two kinds of complexity, look at Crutchfield's work on using formal languages to model the symbolic dynamics generated by dynamical systems as they approach chaos. He shows that as the parameter values of a dynamical system approach those that induce a chaotic regime in the system, the formal languages implicit in the symbolic-dynamics representation of the system's dynamics pass through more and more complex language classes. And of course, recognizing a grammar in a more complex language class has a higher computational complexity. So, Crutchfield's work shows a connection btw self-organizing complexity and computational complexity, via the medium of formal languages and symbolic dynamics. As another, more pertinent example, the Novamente design seeks to avoid the combinatorial explosions implicit in each of its individual AI learning/reasoning components, via integrating these components together in an appropriate way. This integration, via its impact on the overall system dynamics, leads to a certain degree of complexity in the self-organizing-systems sense -- Ben G On Dec 11, 2007 10:09 AM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike Tintner wrote: Essentially, Richard others are replaying the same old problems of computational explosions - see computational complexity in this history of cog. sci. review - no? No: this is a misunderstanding of complexity unfortunately (cf the footnote on p1 of my AGIRI paper): computational complexity refers to how computations scale up, which is not at all the same as the complexity issue, which is about whether or not a particular system can be explained. To see the difference, imagine an algorithm that was good enough to be intelligent, but scaling it up to the size necessary for human-level intelligence would require a computer the size of a galaxy. Nothing wrong with the algorithm, and maybe with a quantum computer it would actually work. This algorithm would be suffering from a computational complexity problem. By contrast, there might be proposed algorithms for iimplementing a human-level intelligence which will never work, no matter how much they are scaled up (indeed, they may actually deteriorate as they are scaled up). If this was happening because the designers were not appreciating that they needed to make subtle and completely non-obvious changes in the algorithm, to get its high-level behavior to be what they wanted it to be, and if this were because intelligence requires complexity-generating processes inside the system, then this would be a complex systems problem. Two completely different issues. Richard Loosemore Mechanical Mind Gilbert Harman Mind as Machine: A History of Cognitive Science. Margaret A. Boden. Two volumes, xlviii + 1631 pp. Oxford University Press, 2006. $225. The term cognitive science, which gained currency in the last half of the 20th century, is used to refer to the study of cognition-cognitive structures and processes in the mind or brain, mostly in people rather than, say, rats or insects. Cognitive science in this sense has reflected a growing rejection of behaviorism in favor of the study of mind and human information processing. The field includes the study of thinking, perception, emotion, creativity, language, consciousness and learning. Sometimes it has involved writing (or at least thinking about) computer programs that attempt to model mental processes or that provide tools such as spreadsheets, theorem provers, mathematical-equation solvers and engines for searching the Web. The programs might involve rules of inference or productions, mental models, connectionist neural networks or other sorts of parallel constraint satisfaction approaches. Cognitive science so understood includes cognitive neuroscience, artificial intelligence (AI), robotics and artificial life; conceptual, linguistic and moral development; and learning in humans, other animals and machines. click for full image and caption Among those sometimes identifying themselves as cognitive scientists are philosophers, computer scientists, psychologists, linguists, engineers, biologists, medical researchers and mathematicians. Some individual contributors to the field have had expertise in several of these more traditional disciplines. An excellent example is the philosopher, psychologist and computer scientist Margaret Boden, who founded the School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences at the University of Sussex and is the author of a number of books, including Artificial Intelligence and Natural Man (1977) and The Creative Mind (1990). Boden has been active in cognitive science pretty much from the start and has known many of
Re: [agi] None of you seem to be able ...
*I just want to jump in here and say I appreciate the content of this post as opposed to many of the posts of late which were just name calling and bickering... hope to see more content instead.* Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ed Porter wrote: Jean-Paul, Although complexity is one of the areas associated with AI where I have less knowledge than many on the list, I was aware of the general distinction you are making. What I was pointing out in my email to Richard Loosemore what that the definitions in his paper Complex Systems, Artificial Intelligence and Theoretical Psychology, for irreducible computability and global-local interconnect themselves are not totally clear about this distinction, and as a result, when Richard says that those two issues are an unavoidable part of AGI design that must be much more deeply understood before AGI can advance, by the more loose definitions which would cover the types of complexity involved in large matrix calculations and the design of a massive supercomputer, of course those issues would arise in AGI design, but its no big deal because we have a long history of dealing with them. But in my email to Richard I said I was assuming he was not using this more loose definitions of these words, because if he were, they would not present the unexpected difficulties of the type he has been predicting. I said I though he was dealing with more the potentially unruly type of complexity, I assume you were talking about. I am aware of that type of complexity being a potential problem, but I have designed my system to hopefully control it. A modern-day well functioning economy is complex (people at the Santa Fe Institute often cite economies as examples of complex systems), but it is often amazingly unchaotic considering how loosely it is organized and how many individual entities it has in it, and how many transitions it is constantly undergoing. Unsually, unless something bangs on it hard (such as having the price of a major commodity all of a sudden triple), it has a fair amount of stability, while constantly creating new winners and losers (which is a productive form of mini-chaos). Of course in the absence of regulation it is naturally prone to boom and bust cycles. Ed, I now understand that you have indeed heard of complex systems before, but I must insist that in your summary above you have summarized what they are in such a way that completely contradicts what they are! A complex system such as the economy can and does have stable modes in which it appears to be stable. This does not constradict the complexity at all. A system is not complex because it is unstable. I am struggling here, Ed. I want to go on to explain exactly what I mean (and what complex systems theorists mean) but I cannot see a way to do it without writing half a book this afternoon. Okay, let me try this. Imagine that we got a bunch of computers and connected them with a network that allowed each one to talk to (say) the ten nearest machines. Imagine that each one is running a very simple program: it keeps a handful of local parameters (U, V, W, X, Y) and it updates the values of its own parameters according to what the neighboring machines are doing with their parameters. How does it do the updating? Well, imagine some really messy and bizarre algorithm that involves looking at the neighbors' values, then using them to cross reference each other, and introduce delays and gradients and stuff. On the face of it, you might think that the result will be that the U V W X Y values just show a random sequence of fluctuations. Well, we know two things about such a system. 1) Experience tells us that even though some systems like that are just random mush, there are some (a noticeably large number in fact) that have overall behavior that shows 'regularities'. For example, much to our surprise we might see waves in the U values. And every time two waves hit each other, a vortex is created for exactly 20 minutes, then it stops. I am making this up, but that is the kind of thing that could happen. 2) The algorithm is so messy that we cannot do any math to analyse and predict the behavior of the system. All we can do is say that we have absolutely no techniques that will allow us to mathematical progress on the problem today, and we do not know if at ANY time in future history there will be a mathematics that will cope with this system. What this means is that the waves and vortices we observed cannot be explained in the normal way. We see them happening, but we do not know why they do. The bizzare algorithm is the low level mechanism and the waves and vortices are the high level behavior, and when I say there is a Global-Local Disconnect in this system, all I mean is that we are completely stuck when it comes to explaining the high level in terms of the low level. Believe me, it is childishly easy
Re: [agi] The same old explosions?
Mike, You are talking about two different occurrences of a computational explosion here, so we need to distinguish them. One is a computational explosion that occurs at design time: this is when a researcher gets an algorithm to do something on a toy problem, but then they figure out how the algorithm scales when it is scaled up to a full size problem and discover that it will just need too much computing power. This explosion doesn't happen in the AGI, it happens in the calculations done by the AGI designer. The second type of explosion might occur in an actual working system (although strictly speaking this would not be called a computational explosion so much as a screw up). If some AGI designer inserts an algorithm that, say, requires the system to engage in an (almost) infinitely long calculation to make a decision at some point, and if the programmer allows the system to start this calculation and then wait for it to end, then the system will hang. AI and Cog Sci have not been obsessed with computational explosions: it is just a fact that any model that suffers from one is dumb, and there are many that do. They have no connection to rational algorithms. Can happen in any kind of systems. (Happens in Microsoft Windows all the time, and if that's rational I'll eat the entire town of Redmond, WA.) it is certainly true that some style of computation are more prone to hanging that others. But really it is pretty straightforward matter to write algorithms in such a way that this is not a problem: it may slow some algorithms down a bit, but that is not a fundamental issue. For what it's worth, my system does indeed stay well away from situations in which it might get locked up. It is always happy to stop what it's doing and go for a drink. But remember, all this is about hanging or livelock, not about the design problem. Richard Loosemore Mike Tintner wrote: Thanks. But one way and another, although there are different variations, cog sci and AI have been obsessed with computational explosions? Ultimately, it seems to me, these are all the problems of algorithms - of a rigid, rational approach and system - which inevitably get stuck in dealing with real world situations, that don't fit or are too computationally demanding for their models. (And can you *guarantee* that your particular complex approach isn't going to run into its own explosions?) These explosions never occur, surely, in the human brain. For at least two reasons. Crucially, the brain has a self which can stop any computation or train of thought and say: bugger this - what's the point? - I'm off for a drink. An essential function. In all seriousness. Secondly, the brain doesn't follow closed algorithms, anyway, as we were discussing. And it doesn't have a single but rather always has conflicting models. (I can't remember whether it was John or s.o. else recently who said I've learned that I can live with conflicting models/worldviews). Richard: Mike Tintner wrote: Essentially, Richard others are replaying the same old problems of computational explosions - see computational complexity in this history of cog. sci. review - no? No: this is a misunderstanding of complexity unfortunately (cf the footnote on p1 of my AGIRI paper): computational complexity refers to how computations scale up, which is not at all the same as the complexity issue, which is about whether or not a particular system can be explained. To see the difference, imagine an algorithm that was good enough to be intelligent, but scaling it up to the size necessary for human-level intelligence would require a computer the size of a galaxy. Nothing wrong with the algorithm, and maybe with a quantum computer it would actually work. This algorithm would be suffering from a computational complexity problem. By contrast, there might be proposed algorithms for iimplementing a human-level intelligence which will never work, no matter how much they are scaled up (indeed, they may actually deteriorate as they are scaled up). If this was happening because the designers were not appreciating that they needed to make subtle and completely non-obvious changes in the algorithm, to get its high-level behavior to be what they wanted it to be, and if this were because intelligence requires complexity-generating processes inside the system, then this would be a complex systems problem. Two completely different issues. Richard Loosemore - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=74586829-bb45d1
Re: [agi] None of you seem to be able ...
However, part of the key to intelligence is **self-tuning**. I believe that if an AGI system is built the right way, it can effectively tune its own parameters, hence adaptively managing its own complexity. I agree with Ben here, isnt one of the core concepts of AGI the ability to modify its behavior and to learn? This will have to be done with a large amount of self-tuning, as we will not be changing parameters for every action, that wouldnt be efficient. (this part does not require actual self-code writing just yet) Its more a matter of finding out a way to guide the AGI in changing the parameters, checking the changes and reflecting back over the changes to see if they are effective for future events. What is needed at some point is being able to converse at a high level with the AGI, and correcting their behaviour, such as Dont touch that, cause it will have a bad effect and having the AGI do all of the parameter changing and link building and strengthening/weakening necessary in its memory. It may do this in a very complex way and may effect many parts of its systems, but by multiple reinforcement we should be able to guide the overall behaviour if not all of the parameters directly. James Ratcliff Benjamin Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Conclusion: there is a danger that the complexity that even Ben agrees must be present in AGI systems will have a significant impact on our efforts to build them. But the only response to this danger at the moment is the bare statement made by people like Ben that I do not think that the danger is significant. No reason given, no explicit attack on any component of the argument I have given, only a statement of intuition, even though I have argued that intuition cannot in principle be a trustworthy guide here. But Richard, your argument ALSO depends on intuitions ... I'll try, though, to more concisely frame the reason I think your argument is wrong. I agree that AGI systems contain a lot of complexity in the dynamical- systems-theory sense. And I agree that tuning all the parameters of an AGI system externally is likely to be intractable, due to this complexity. However, part of the key to intelligence is **self-tuning**. I believe that if an AGI system is built the right way, it can effectively tune its own parameters, hence adaptively managing its own complexity. Now you may say there's a problem here: If AGI component A2 is to tune the parameters of AGI component A1, and A1 is complex, then A2 has got to also be complex ... and who's gonna tune its parameters? So the answer has got to be that: To effectively tune the parameters of an AGI component of complexity X, requires an AGI component of complexity a bit less than X. Then one can build a self-tuning AGI system, if one does the job right. Now, I'm not saying that Novamente (for instance) is explicitly built according to this architecture: it doesn't have N components wherein component A_N tunes the parameters of component A_(N+1). But in many ways, throughout the architecture, it relies on this sort of fundamental logic. Obviously it is not the case that every system of complexity X can be parameter-tuned by a system of complexity less than X. The question however is whether an AGI system can be built of such components. I suggest the answer is yes -- and furthermore suggest that this is pretty much the ONLY way to do it... Your intuition is that this is not possible, but you don't have a proof of this... And yes, I realize the above argument of mine is conceptual only -- I haven't given a formal definition of complexity. There are many, but that would lead into a mess of math that I don't have time to deal with right now, in the context of answering an email... -- Ben G - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=74588401-fe7760
Re: [agi] The same old explosions?
Benjamin Goertzel wrote: Self-organizing complexity and computational complexity are quite separate technical uses of the word complexity, though I do think there are subtle relationships. As an example of a relationship btw the two kinds of complexity, look at Crutchfield's work on using formal languages to model the symbolic dynamics generated by dynamical systems as they approach chaos. He shows that as the parameter values of a dynamical system approach those that induce a chaotic regime in the system, the formal languages implicit in the symbolic-dynamics representation of the system's dynamics pass through more and more complex language classes. This is true: you can find connections between the two usages, even though they start out being in principle different. The Crutchfield work sounds like a good illustration of the complexity = edge of chaos idea. And of course, recognizing a grammar in a more complex language class has a higher computational complexity. So, Crutchfield's work shows a connection btw self-organizing complexity and computational complexity, via the medium of formal languages and symbolic dynamics. As another, more pertinent example, the Novamente design seeks to avoid the combinatorial explosions implicit in each of its individual AI learning/reasoning components, via integrating these components together in an appropriate way. This integration, via its impact on the overall system dynamics, leads to a certain degree of complexity in the self-organizing-systems sense Indeed: that being one of the ways that complexity creeps in. All AI systems have to allow for the fact that some mechanisms have to be told to time out and submit their best guess, for example, and when that happens the overall behavior of the system becomes a good deal more subtly related to its design spec. Richard Loosemore -- Ben G On Dec 11, 2007 10:09 AM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike Tintner wrote: Essentially, Richard others are replaying the same old problems of computational explosions - see computational complexity in this history of cog. sci. review - no? No: this is a misunderstanding of complexity unfortunately (cf the footnote on p1 of my AGIRI paper): computational complexity refers to how computations scale up, which is not at all the same as the complexity issue, which is about whether or not a particular system can be explained. To see the difference, imagine an algorithm that was good enough to be intelligent, but scaling it up to the size necessary for human-level intelligence would require a computer the size of a galaxy. Nothing wrong with the algorithm, and maybe with a quantum computer it would actually work. This algorithm would be suffering from a computational complexity problem. By contrast, there might be proposed algorithms for iimplementing a human-level intelligence which will never work, no matter how much they are scaled up (indeed, they may actually deteriorate as they are scaled up). If this was happening because the designers were not appreciating that they needed to make subtle and completely non-obvious changes in the algorithm, to get its high-level behavior to be what they wanted it to be, and if this were because intelligence requires complexity-generating processes inside the system, then this would be a complex systems problem. Two completely different issues. Richard Loosemore - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=74589437-aa2865
RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
Here's a basic abstract I did last year I think: http://www.falazar.com/AI/AAAI05_Student_Abtract_James_Ratcliff.pdf Would like to work with others on a full fledged Reprensentation system that could use these kind of techniques I hacked this together by myself, so I know a real team could put this kind of stuff to much better use. James Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I James, Do you have any description or examples of you results. This is something I have been telling people for years. That you should be able to extract a significant amount (but probably far from all) world knowledge by scanning large corpora of text. I would love to see how well it actually works for a given size of corpora, and for a given level of algorithmic sophistication. Ed Porter -Original Message- From: James Ratcliff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 4:51 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research] Richard, What is your specific complaint about the 'viability of the framework'? Ed, This line of data gathering is very interesting to me as well, though I found quickly that using all web sources quickly devolved into insanity. By using scanned text novels, I was able to extract lots of relational information on a range of topics. With a well defined ontology system, and some human overview, a large amount of information can be extracted and many probabilities learned. James Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RICHARD LOOSEMORE= You are implicitly assuming a certain framework for solving the problem of representing knowledge ... and then all your discussion is about whether or not it is feasible to implement that framework (to overcome various issues to do with searches that have to be done within that framework). But I am not challenging the implementation issues, I am challenging the viability of the framework itself. JAMES--- What e ED PORTER= So what is wrong with my framework? What is wrong with a system of recording patterns, and a method for developing compositions and generalities from those patterns, in multiple hierarchical levels, and for indicating the probabilities of certain patterns given certain other pattern etc? I know it doesn't genuflect before the alter of complexity. But what is wrong with the framework other than the fact that it is at a high level and thus does not explain every little detail of how to actually make an AGI work? RICHARD LOOSEMORE= These models you are talking about are trivial exercises in public relations, designed to look really impressive, and filled with hype designed to attract funding, which actually accomplish very little. Please, Ed, don't do this to me. Please don't try to imply that I need to open my mind any more. Th implication seems to be that I do not understand the issues in enough depth, and need to do some more work to understand you points. I can assure you this is not the case. ED PORTER= Shastri's Shruiti is a major piece of work. Although it is a highly simplified system, for its degree of simplification it is amazingly powerful. It has been very helpful to my thinking about AGI. Please give me some excuse for calling it trivial exercise in public relations. I certainly have not published anything as important. Have you? The same for Mike Collins's parsers which, at least several years ago I was told by multiple people at MIT was considered one of the most accurate NL parsers around. Is that just a trivial exercise in public relations? With regard to Hecht-Nielsen's work, if it does half of what he says it does it is pretty damned impressive. It is also a work I think about often when thinking how to deal with certain AI problems. Richard if you insultingly dismiss such valid work as trivial exercises in public relations it sure as hell seems as if either you are quite lacking in certain important understandings -- or you have a closed mind -- or both. Ed Porter - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; ___ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com Looking for something... - Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI:
RE: [agi] AGI and Deity
From: Joshua Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] It's interesting that the field of memetics is moribund (ex. the Journal of Memetics hasn't published in two years) but the meme of memetics is alive and well. I wonder, do any of the AGI researchers find the concept of Memes useful in describing how their proposed AGIs would acquire or transfer information? Not sure if it is moribund. Maybe they have discovered that Cultural Informational Transfer may have more non-genetically aligned properties than was originally claimed? There is overlap with other fields as well, so contention exists. But the concepts are there, they are not going away, the medium is much different and enhanced with computers and internet. John - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=74594746-23d62b
Re: [agi] None of you seem to be able ...
James Ratcliff wrote: However, part of the key to intelligence is **self-tuning**. I believe that if an AGI system is built the right way, it can effectively tune its own parameters, hence adaptively managing its own complexity. I agree with Ben here, isnt one of the core concepts of AGI the ability to modify its behavior and to learn? That might sound like a good way to proceed, but now consider this. Suppose that the AGI is designed with a symbol system in which the symbols are very much mainstream-style symbols, and one aspect of them is that there are truth-values associated with the statements that use those symbols (as in I like cats, t=0.9). Now suppose that the very fact that truth values were being *explicitly* represented and manipulated by the system was causing it to run smack bang into the Complex Systems Problem. In other words, suppose that you cannot get that kind of design to work because when it scales up the whole truth-value maintenance mechanism just comes apart. Suppose, further, that the only AGI systems that really do work are ones in which the symbols never use truth values but use other stuff (for which there is no interpretation) and that the thing we call a truth value is actually the result of an operator that can be applied to a bunch of connected symbols. This [truth-value = external operator] idea is fundamentally different from [truth-value = internal parameter] idea, obviously. Now here is my problem: how would parameter-tuning ever cause that first AGI design to realise that it had to abandon one bit of its architecture and redesign itself? Surely this is more than parameter tuning? There is no way it could simply stop working and completely redesign all of its internal architecture to not use the t-values, and make the operators etc etc.! So here is the rub: if the CSP does cause this kind of issue (and that is why I invented the CSP idea in the first place, because it was precisely those kinds of architectural issues that seemed wrong), then parameter tuning will never be good enough, it will have to be a huge and very serious new approach to making our AGI designs flexible at the design level. Does that make sense? Richard Loosemore This will have to be done with a large amount of self-tuning, as we will not be changing parameters for every action, that wouldnt be efficient. (this part does not require actual self-code writing just yet) Its more a matter of finding out a way to guide the AGI in changing the parameters, checking the changes and reflecting back over the changes to see if they are effective for future events. What is needed at some point is being able to converse at a high level with the AGI, and correcting their behaviour, such as Dont touch that, cause it will have a bad effect and having the AGI do all of the parameter changing and link building and strengthening/weakening necessary in its memory. It may do this in a very complex way and may effect many parts of its systems, but by multiple reinforcement we should be able to guide the overall behaviour if not all of the parameters directly. James Ratcliff */Benjamin Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: Conclusion: there is a danger that the complexity that even Ben agrees must be present in AGI systems will have a significant impact on our efforts to build them. But the only response to this danger at the moment is the bare statement made by people like Ben that I do not think that the danger is significant. No reason given, no explicit attack on any component of the argument I have given, only a statement of intuition, even though I have argued that intuition cannot in principle be a trustworthy guide here. But Richard, your argument ALSO depends on intuitions ... I'll try, though, to more concisely frame the reason I think your argument is wrong. I agree that AGI systems contain a lot of complexity in the dynamical- systems-theory sense. And I agree that tuning all the parameters of an AGI system externally is likely to be intractable, due to this complexity. However, part of the key to intelligence is **self-tuning**. I believe that if an AGI system is built the right way, it can effectively tune its own parameters, hence adaptively managing its own complexity. Now you may say there's a problem here: If AGI component A2 is to tune the parameters of AGI component A1, and A1 is complex, then A2 has got to also be complex ... and who's gonna tune its parameters? So the answer has got to be that: To effectively tune the parameters of an AGI component of complexity X, requires an AGI component of complexity a bit less than X. Then one can build a self-tuning AGI system, if one does the job right. Now, I'm not saying that Novamente (for instance) is explicitly built
Re: Human Irrationality [WAS Re: [agi] None of you seem to be able ...]
irrationality - is used to describe thinking and actions which are, or appear to be, less useful or logical than the other alternatives. and rational would be the opposite of that. This line of thinking is more concerned with the behaviour of the entities, which requires Goal orienting and other things. An irrational being is NOT working effectively towards the goal according to this. This may be necessary in order to determine new routes, unique solutions to a problem, and according to the description will be included in most AGI's I have heard described so far. The other definition which seems to be in the air around here is irrational - acting without reason or logic. An entity that acts without reason or logic entirely is a totally random being, will choose to do something for no reason, and will not ever find any goals or solutions without accidentily hitting them. In AGI terms, any entity given multiple equally rewarding alternative paths to a goal may randomly select any of them. This may be considered acting without reason, as there was no real basis for choosing 1 as opposed to 2, but it also may be very reasonable, as given any situation where either path can be chosen, choosing one is reasonable. (choosing no path at that point would indeed be irrational and pointless) I havnt seen any solutions proposed that require any real level of acting without reason and neural nets and others are all reasonable, though the reasoning may be complex and hidden from us, or hard to understand. The example given previously about the computer system that changes its thinking in the middle of discovering a solution, is not irrational, as it is just contuing to follow its rules, it can still change those rules as it allows, and may have very good reason for doing so. James Ratcliff Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard: Mike, I think you are going to have to be specific about what you mean by irrational because you mostly just say that all the processes that could possibly exist in computers are rational, and I am wondering what else is there that irrational could possibly mean. I have named many processes that seem to me to fit the irrational definition, but without being too clear about it you have declared them all to be just rational, so now I have no idea what you can be meaning by the word. Richard, Er, it helps to read my posts. From my penultimate post to you: If a system can change its approach and rules of reasoning at literally any step of problem-solving, then it is truly crazy/ irrational (think of a crazy path). And it will be capable of producing all the human irrationalities that I listed previously - like not even defining or answering the problem. It will by the same token have the capacity to be truly creative, because it will ipso facto be capable of lateral thinking at any step of problem-solving. Is your system capable of that? Or anything close? Somehow I doubt it, or you'd already be claiming the solution to both AGI and computational creativity. A rational system follows a set of rules in solving a problem (which can incl. rules that self-modify according to metarules) ; a creative, irrational system can change/break/create any and all rules (incl. metarules) at any point of solving a problem - the ultimate, by definition, in adaptivity. (Much like you, and indeed all of us, change the rules of engagement much of the time in our discussions here). Listen, no need to reply - because you're obviously not really interested. To me that's ironic, though, because this is absolutely the most central issue there is in AGI. But no matter. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=74598181-2b0ae5
Re: [agi] None of you seem to be able ...
Richard: Suppose, further, that the only AGI systems that really do work are ones in which the symbols never use truth values but use other stuff (for which there is no interpretation) and that the thing we call a truth value is actually the result of an operator that can be applied to a bunch of connected symbols. This [truth-value = external operator] idea is fundamentally different from [truth-value = internal parameter] idea, obviously. I almost added to my last post that another reason the brain never seizes up is that its concepts ( its entire representational operations) are open-ended trees, relatively ill-defined and ill-structured, and therefore endlessly open to reinterpretation. Supergeneral concepts like Go away, Come here, put this over there, or indeed is that true? enable it to be flexible and creatively adaptive, especially if it gets stuck - and find other ways, for example, to go come, put or deem as true etc. Is this something like what you are on about? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=74601069-e39ad4
RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
James, I read your paper. Your project seems right on the mark. It provides a domain-limited example of the general type of learning algorithm that will probably be the central learning algorithm of AGI, i.e., finding patterns, and hierarchies of patterns in the AGI's experience in a largely unsupervised manner. The application of the type of learning algorithm to text makes sense because, with the web, it is one of the easiest types of experience to get in large volumes. It is very much the type of project I have been advocating for years. When I first heard of the Google project to put millions of books into digital form, I assumed it was for exactly such purposes, and told multiple people so. (Ditto for the CMU million book project.) It seems to be the conventional wisdom that Google is not using its vast resources for such an obvious purpose, but I wouldn't be so sure. It seems to me that fiction books, at an estimated average length of 300 pages at 300 words/page, would only have about 100K words each, so that 600 of them would only be about 60 Million words, which is amazingly small for learning from corpora studies. That you were able to learn so much from so little is encouraging, but it would really be interesting to see such a project done on very large corpora, 10 or 100s of billions of words. It would be interesting to see how much of human common sense (and expertise) they could, and could not, derive. Ed Porter -Original Message- From: James Ratcliff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 11:26 AM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research] Here's a basic abstract I did last year I think: http://www.falazar.com/AI/AAAI05_Student_Abtract_James_Ratcliff.pdf Would like to work with others on a full fledged Reprensentation system that could use these kind of techniques I hacked this together by myself, so I know a real team could put this kind of stuff to much better use. James Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: James, Do you have any description or examples of you results. This is something I have been telling people for years. That you should be able to extract a significant amount (but probably far from all) world knowledge by scanning large corpora of text. I would love to see how well it actually works for a given size of corpora, and for a given level of algorithmic sophistication. Ed Porter -Original Message- From: James Ratcliff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 4:51 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research] Richard, What is your specific complaint about the 'viability of the framework'? Ed, This line of data gathering is very interesting to me as well, though I found quickly that using all web sources quickly devolved into insanity. By using scanned text novels, I was able to extract lots of relational information on a range of topics. With a well defined ontology system, and some human overview, a large amount of information can be extracted and many probabilities learned. James Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RICHARD LOOSEMORE= You are implicitly assuming a certain framework for solving the problem of representing knowledge ... and then all your discussion is about whether or not it is feasible to implement that framework (to overcome various issues to do with searches that have to be done within that framework). But I am not challenging the implementation issues, I am challenging the viability of the framework itself. JAMES--- What e ED PORTER= So what is wrong with my framework? What is wrong with a system of recording patterns, and a method for developing compositions and generalities from those patterns, in multiple hierarchical levels, and for indicating the probabilities of certain patterns given certain other pattern etc? I know it doesn't genuflect before the alter of complexity. But what is wrong with the framework other than the fact that it is at a high level and thus does not explain every little detail of how to actually make an AGI work? RICHARD LOOSEMORE= These models you are talking about are trivial exercises in public relations, designed to look really impressive, and filled with hype designed to attract funding, which actually accomplish very little. Please, Ed, don't do this to me. Please don't try to imply that I need to open my mind any more. Th implication seems to be that I do not understand the issues in enough depth, and need to do some more work to understand you points. I can assure you this is not the case. ED PORTER= Shastri's Shruiti is a major piece of work. Although it is a highly simplified system, for its degree of simplification it is amazingly powerful. It has been very helpful to my thinking about AGI. Please give me some excuse for calling it trivial
Re: [agi] None of you seem to be able ...
James: Either of these systems described will have a Complexity Problem, any AGI will because it is a very complex system. System 1 I dont believe is strictly practical, as few Truth values can be stored locally directly to the frame. More realistic is there may be a temporary value such as: I like cats t=0.9 Which is calculated from some other backing facts, such as I said I like cats. t=1.0 I like Rosemary (a cat) t=0.8 then parameter tuning will never be good enough, it will have to be a huge and very serious new approach to making our AGI designs flexible at the design level. System 2, though it uses unnamed parameters, would still need to determine these temporary values. Any representation system must have parameter tuning in some form. Either of these systems has the same problem though, of updating the information, such as Seen: I dont like Ganji (a cat) both systems must update their representation to update with this new information. Neither a symbol-system nor a neural network (closest you mean by system 2?) has been shown able to scale up to a larger system needed for an AGI, but neither has been shown ineffective I dont believe either. Whether a system explicity or implicitly stores the information I believe you must be able to ask it the reasoning behind any thought process. This can be done with either system, and may give a very long answer, but once you get a system that makes decicions and cannot explain its reasoning, that is a very scary thought, and it is truly acting irrationaly as I see it. While you cant extract a small portion of the representation from system 1 or two outside of the whole, you must be able to print out the calculated values that a Frame type system shows. James Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: James Ratcliff wrote: However, part of the key to intelligence is **self-tuning**. I believe that if an AGI system is built the right way, it can effectively tune its own parameters, hence adaptively managing its own complexity. I agree with Ben here, isnt one of the core concepts of AGI the ability to modify its behavior and to learn? That might sound like a good way to proceed, but now consider this. System 1: Suppose that the AGI is designed with a symbol system in which the symbols are very much mainstream-style symbols, and one aspect of them is that there are truth-values associated with the statements that use those symbols (as in I like cats, t=0.9). Now suppose that the very fact that truth values were being *explicitly* represented and manipulated by the system was causing it to run smack bang into the Complex Systems Problem. In other words, suppose that you cannot get that kind of design to work because when it scales up the whole truth-value maintenance mechanism just comes apart. System 2: Suppose, further, that the only AGI systems that really do work are ones in which the symbols never use truth values but use other stuff (for which there is no interpretation) and that the thing we call a truth value is actually the result of an operator that can be applied to a bunch of connected symbols. This [truth-value = external operator] idea is fundamentally different from [truth-value = internal parameter] idea, obviously. Now here is my problem: how would parameter-tuning ever cause that first AGI design to realise that it had to abandon one bit of its architecture and redesign itself? Surely this is more than parameter tuning? There is no way it could imply stop working and completely redesign all of its internal architecture to not use the t-values, and make the operators etc etc.! So here is the rub: if the CSP does cause this kind of issue (and that is why I invented the CSP idea in the first place, because it was precisely those kinds of architectural issues that seemed wrong), then parameter tuning will never be good enough, it will have to be a huge and very serious new approach to making our AGI designs flexible at the design level. Does that make sense? Richard Loosemore This will have to be done with a large amount of self-tuning, as we will not be changing parameters for every action, that wouldnt be efficient. (this part does not require actual self-code writing just yet) Its more a matter of finding out a way to guide the AGI in changing the parameters, checking the changes and reflecting back over the changes to see if they are effective for future events. What is needed at some point is being able to converse at a high level with the AGI, and correcting their behaviour, such as Dont touch that, cause it will have a bad effect and having the AGI do all of the parameter changing and link building and strengthening/weakening necessary in its memory. It may do this in a very complex way and may effect many parts of its systems, but by multiple reinforcement we should be able to guide the overall behaviour if not all of the
RE: [agi] AGI and Deity
From: Charles D Hixson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The evidence in favor of an external god of any traditional form is, frankly, a bit worse than unimpressive. It's lots worse. This doesn't mean that gods don't exist, merely that they (probably) don't exist in the hardware of the universe. I see them as a function of the software of the entities that use language. Possibly they exist in a muted form in most pack animals, or most animals that have protective adults when they are infants. To me it appears that people believe in gods for the same reasons that they believe in telepathy. I.e., evidence back before they could speak clearly indicated that the adults could transfer thoughts from one to another. This shaped a basic layer of beliefs that was later buried under later additions, but never refuted. When one learned language, one learned how to transfer thoughts ... but it was never tied back into the original belief, because what was learned didn't match closely enough to the original model of what was happening. Analogously, when one is an infant the adult that cares for one is seen as the all powerful protector. Pieces of this image become detached memories within the mind, and are not refuted when a more accurate and developed model of the actual parents is created. These hidden memories are the basis around which the idea of a god is created. Naturally, this is just my model of what is happening. Other possibilities exist. But if I am to consider them seriously, they need to match the way the world operates as I understand it. They don't need to predict the same mechanism, but they need to predict the same events. E.g., I consider Big Bang cosmology a failed explanation. It's got too many ad hoc pieces. But it successfully explains most things that are observed, and is consistent with relativity and quantum theory. (Naturally, as they were used in developing it...but nevertheless important.) And relativity and quantum theory themselves are failures, because both are needed to explain that which is observable, but they contradict each other in certain details. But they are successful failures! Similar commentary applies to string theory, but with differences. (Too many ad hoc parameters!) Any god that is proposed must be shown to be consistent with the observed phenomena. The Deists managed to come up with one that would do the job, but he never became very popular. Few others have even tried, except with absurdly evident special pleading. Generally I'd be more willing to accept Chariots of the Gods as a true account. And as for moral principles... I've READ the Bible. The basic moral principle that it pushes is We are the chosen people. Kill the stranger, steal his property, and enslave his servants! It requires selective reading to come up with anything else, though I admit that other messages are also in there, if you read selectively. Especially during the periods when the Jews were in one captivity or another. (I.e., if you are weak, preach mercy, but if you are strong show none.) During the later times the Jews were generally under the thumb of one foreign power or another, so they started preaching mercy. One of the things about gods is that they are representations for what the believers don't know and understand. Gods change over time as our knowledge changes over time. That is ONE of the properties of them. The move from polytheistic to monotheistic beliefs is a way to centralize these unknowns for efficiency. You could build AGI and label the unknowns with gods. You honestly could. Magic happens here and combinatorial explosion regions could be labeled as gods. Most people on this email list would frown at doing that but I say it is totally possible and might be a very extremely efficient way of conquering certain cognitive engineering issues. And I'm sure some on this list have already thought about doing that. John - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=74607326-c9be15
RE: [agi] AGI and Deity
John, You implied there might be a very extremely efficient way of conquering certain cognitive engineering issues by using religion in AGIs. Obviously any powerful AGI that deals with a complex and uncertain world like ours would have to have belief systems, but it is not clear to me their would be any benefit in them being religious in any sense that Dawkins is not. So, since you are a smart guy, perhaps you are seeing something I do not. Could you please fill me in? Ed Porter -Original Message- From: John G. Rose [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 12:43 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: RE: [agi] AGI and Deity From: Charles D Hixson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The evidence in favor of an external god of any traditional form is, frankly, a bit worse than unimpressive. It's lots worse. This doesn't mean that gods don't exist, merely that they (probably) don't exist in the hardware of the universe. I see them as a function of the software of the entities that use language. Possibly they exist in a muted form in most pack animals, or most animals that have protective adults when they are infants. To me it appears that people believe in gods for the same reasons that they believe in telepathy. I.e., evidence back before they could speak clearly indicated that the adults could transfer thoughts from one to another. This shaped a basic layer of beliefs that was later buried under later additions, but never refuted. When one learned language, one learned how to transfer thoughts ... but it was never tied back into the original belief, because what was learned didn't match closely enough to the original model of what was happening. Analogously, when one is an infant the adult that cares for one is seen as the all powerful protector. Pieces of this image become detached memories within the mind, and are not refuted when a more accurate and developed model of the actual parents is created. These hidden memories are the basis around which the idea of a god is created. Naturally, this is just my model of what is happening. Other possibilities exist. But if I am to consider them seriously, they need to match the way the world operates as I understand it. They don't need to predict the same mechanism, but they need to predict the same events. E.g., I consider Big Bang cosmology a failed explanation. It's got too many ad hoc pieces. But it successfully explains most things that are observed, and is consistent with relativity and quantum theory. (Naturally, as they were used in developing it...but nevertheless important.) And relativity and quantum theory themselves are failures, because both are needed to explain that which is observable, but they contradict each other in certain details. But they are successful failures! Similar commentary applies to string theory, but with differences. (Too many ad hoc parameters!) Any god that is proposed must be shown to be consistent with the observed phenomena. The Deists managed to come up with one that would do the job, but he never became very popular. Few others have even tried, except with absurdly evident special pleading. Generally I'd be more willing to accept Chariots of the Gods as a true account. And as for moral principles... I've READ the Bible. The basic moral principle that it pushes is We are the chosen people. Kill the stranger, steal his property, and enslave his servants! It requires selective reading to come up with anything else, though I admit that other messages are also in there, if you read selectively. Especially during the periods when the Jews were in one captivity or another. (I.e., if you are weak, preach mercy, but if you are strong show none.) During the later times the Jews were generally under the thumb of one foreign power or another, so they started preaching mercy. One of the things about gods is that they are representations for what the believers don't know and understand. Gods change over time as our knowledge changes over time. That is ONE of the properties of them. The move from polytheistic to monotheistic beliefs is a way to centralize these unknowns for efficiency. You could build AGI and label the unknowns with gods. You honestly could. Magic happens here and combinatorial explosion regions could be labeled as gods. Most people on this email list would frown at doing that but I say it is totally possible and might be a very extremely efficient way of conquering certain cognitive engineering issues. And I'm sure some on this list have already thought about doing that. John - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=74654897-672ca9attachment: winmail.dat
RE: Distributed search (was RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research])
--- Jean-Paul Van Belle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Matt, Wonderful idea, now it will even show the typical human trait of lying...when i ask it do you still love me? most answers in its database will have Yes as an answer but when i ask it 'what's my name?' it'll call me John? My proposed message posting service allows anyone to contribute to its knowledge base, just like Wikipedia, so it could certainly contain some false or useless information. However, the number of peers that keep a copy of a message will depend on the number of peers that accept it according to the peers' policies, which are set individually by their owners. The network provides an incentive for peers to produce useful information so that other peers will accept it. Thus, useful and truthful information is more likely to be propagated. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=74671775-73001c
Re: [agi] None of you seem to be able ...
Well, this wasn't quite what I was pointing to: there will always be a need for parameter tuning. That goes without saying. The point was that if an AGI developer were to commit to system 1, they are never going to get to the (hypothetical) system 2 by anything as trivial as parameter tuning. Therefore parameter tuning is useless for curing the complex systems problem. That is why I do not accept that parameter tuning is an adequate response to the problem. Richard Loosemore James Ratcliff wrote: James: Either of these systems described will have a Complexity Problem, any AGI will because it is a very complex system. System 1 I dont believe is strictly practical, as few Truth values can be stored locally directly to the frame. More realistic is there may be a temporary value such as: I like cats t=0.9 Which is calculated from some other backing facts, such as I said I like cats. t=1.0 I like Rosemary (a cat) t=0.8 then parameter tuning will never be good enough, it will have to be a huge and very serious new approach to making our AGI designs flexible at the design level. System 2, though it uses unnamed parameters, would still need to determine these temporary values. Any representation system must have parameter tuning in some form. Either of these systems has the same problem though, of updating the information, such as Seen: I dont like Ganji (a cat) both systems must update their representation to update with this new information. Neither a symbol-system nor a neural network (closest you mean by system 2?) has been shown able to scale up to a larger system needed for an AGI, but neither has been shown ineffective I dont believe either. Whether a system explicity or implicitly stores the information I believe you must be able to ask it the reasoning behind any thought process. This can be done with either system, and may give a very long answer, but once you get a system that makes decicions and cannot explain its reasoning, that is a very scary thought, and it is truly acting irrationaly as I see it. While you cant extract a small portion of the representation from system 1 or two outside of the whole, you must be able to print out the calculated values that a Frame type system shows. James */Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: James Ratcliff wrote: However, part of the key to intelligence is **self-tuning**. I believe that if an AGI system is built the right way, it can effectively tune its own parameters, hence adaptively managing its own complexity. I agree with Ben here, isnt one of the core concepts of AGI the ability to modify its behavior and to learn? That might sound like a good way to proceed, but now consider this. System 1: Suppose that the AGI is designed with a symbol system in which the symbols are very much mainstream-style symbols, and one aspect of them is that there are truth-values associated with the statements that use those symbols (as in I like cats, t=0.9). Now suppose that the very fact that truth values were being *explicitly* represented and manipulated by the system was causing it to run smack bang into the Complex Systems Problem. In other words, suppose that you cannot get that kind of design to work because when it scales up the whole truth-value maintenance mechanism just comes apart. System 2: Suppose, further, that the only AGI systems that really do work are ones in which the symbols never use truth values but use other stuff (for which there is no interpretation) and that the thing we call a truth value is actually the result of an operator that can be applied to a bunch of connected symbols. This [truth-value = external operator] idea is fundamentally different from [truth-value = internal parameter] idea, obviously. Now here is my problem: how would parameter-tuning ever cause that first AGI design to realise that it had to abandon one bit of its architecture and redesign itself? Surely this is more than parameter tuning? There is no way it could imply stop working and completely redesign all of its internal architecture to not use the t-values, and make the operators etc etc.! So here is the rub: if the CSP does cause this kind of issue (and that is why I invented the CSP idea in the first place, because it was precisely those kinds of architectural issues that seemed wrong), then parameter tuning will never be good enough, it will have to be a huge and very serious new approach to making our AGI designs flexible at the design level. Does that make sense? Richard Loosemore This will have to be done with a large amount of self-tuning, as we will not be changing parameters for every action, that wouldnt be efficient. (this part does not require actual self-code
An information theoretic measure of reinforcement (was RE: [agi] AGI and Deity)
--- John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is an AGI really going to feel pain or is it just going to be some numbers? I guess that doesn't have a simple answer. The pain has to be engineered well for it to REALLY understand it. An agent capable of reinforcement learning has an upper bound on the amount of pleasure or pain it can experience in a lifetime, in an information theoretic sense. If an agent responds to input X with output Y, followed by reinforcement R, then we say that R is a positive reinforcement (pleasure, R0) if it increases the probability P(Y|X) and negative reinforcement (pain, R0) if it decreases P(Y|X). Let S1 be the state of the agent before R, and S2 be the state afterwards. We may define the bound: |R| = K(S2|S1) where K is Kolmogorov complexity, the length of the shortest program that outputs an encoding of S2 given S1 as input. This definition is intuitive in that the greater the reinforcement, the greater the change in behavior of the agent. Also, it is consistent with the belief that higher animals (like humans) have greater capacity to feel pleasure and pain than lower animals (like insects) that have simpler mental states. We must use the absolute value of R because the behavior X - Y could be learned using either positive reinforcement (rewarding X - Y), negative reinforcement (penalizing X - not Y), or by neutral methods such as classical conditioning (presenting X and Y together). If you accept this definition, then an agent cannot feel more accumulated pleasure or pain in its lifetime than K(S(death)|S(birth)). A simple program like autobliss ( http://www.mattmahoney.net/autobliss.txt ) could not experience more than 256 bits of reinforcement, whereas a human could experience 10^9 bits according to cognitive models of long term memory. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=74724148-5841d4
Re: An information theoretic measure of reinforcement (was RE: [agi] AGI and Deity)
Matt Mahoney wrote: --- John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is an AGI really going to feel pain or is it just going to be some numbers? I guess that doesn't have a simple answer. The pain has to be engineered well for it to REALLY understand it. An agent capable of reinforcement learning has an upper bound on the amount of pleasure or pain it can experience in a lifetime, in an information theoretic sense. If an agent responds to input X with output Y, followed by reinforcement R, then we say that R is a positive reinforcement (pleasure, R0) if it increases the probability P(Y|X) and negative reinforcement (pain, R0) if it decreases P(Y|X). Let S1 be the state of the agent before R, and S2 be the state afterwards. We may define the bound: |R| = K(S2|S1) where K is Kolmogorov complexity, the length of the shortest program that outputs an encoding of S2 given S1 as input. This definition is intuitive in that the greater the reinforcement, the greater the change in behavior of the agent. Also, it is consistent with the belief that higher animals (like humans) have greater capacity to feel pleasure and pain than lower animals (like insects) that have simpler mental states. We must use the absolute value of R because the behavior X - Y could be learned using either positive reinforcement (rewarding X - Y), negative reinforcement (penalizing X - not Y), or by neutral methods such as classical conditioning (presenting X and Y together). If you accept this definition, then an agent cannot feel more accumulated pleasure or pain in its lifetime than K(S(death)|S(birth)). A simple program like autobliss ( http://www.mattmahoney.net/autobliss.txt ) could not experience more than 256 bits of reinforcement, whereas a human could experience 10^9 bits according to cognitive models of long term memory. I have to say that this is only one interpretation of what it would mean for an AGI to experience something, and I for one believe it has no validity at all. It is purely a numeric calculation that makes no reference to what pain (or any other kind of subjective experience) actually is. Sorry, but this is such a strong point of disagreement that I have to go on record. Richard Loosemore - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=74764705-216ca2
RE: [agi] AGI and Deity
What do you call the computer that simulates what you perceive to be the universe? -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=74807053-cea06f
RE: [agi] AGI and Deity
Ed, It's a very complicated subject and requires a certain theoretical mental background and somewhat unbiased mindset. Though a biased mindset, for example a person, who is religious, could use the theory to propel their religion into post humanity - maybe a good idea to help preserve humanity - or should that be left up to atheists, who knows. What I mean by conquering cognitive engineering issues I'm just looking for parallels in the development and evolution of human intelligence and its symbiotic relationship with religion and deities. You have to understand what cognitive functions deities contribute and facilitate in the human mind and the civilized set of minds (and perhaps proto and pre human as well as non-human cognition - which is highly speculative and relatively unknown). What are the deitical and religious contributions to cognition and knowledge and how do they facilitate and enable intelligence? Are they actually REQUIRED in some form or another? Again - Are they required for the evolution of human intelligence and for engineering general artificial intelligence? Wouldn't demonstrating that make a guy like Dawkins do some SERIOUS backpedaling :-) The viewpoint of gods representing unknowns is just one aspect of the thing. Keep in mind that there are other aspects. But from the informational perspective a god function as a concept and system of concepts aggregated and representing a highly adaptive and communal entity, incorporated within a knowledge and perceptual framework, with inference weighting spread across informational density, adding open endedness as a crutch, functioning as an altruistic confidence assistor, blah blah, a god(s) function modeled from its loosly isomorphic systems representation in human deities might be used to accomplish the same cognitive things(as well as others), especially representing unknown in a systematic, controllable and actually in its own distributed and intelligent way. There are benefits. Also a major benefit is that it would be a common channel of unknown operative substrate that hooks into human belief networks. John _ From: Ed Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 11:25 AM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: RE: [agi] AGI and Deity John, You implied there might be a very extremely efficient way of conquering certain cognitive engineering issues by using religion in AGIs. Obviously any powerful AGI that deals with a complex and uncertain world like ours would have to have belief systems, but it is not clear to me their would be any benefit in them being religious in any sense that Dawkins is not. So, since you are a smart guy, perhaps you are seeing something I do not. Could you please fill me in? Ed Porter -Original Message- From: John G. Rose [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 12:43 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: RE: [agi] AGI and Deity From: Charles D Hixson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The evidence in favor of an external god of any traditional form is, frankly, a bit worse than unimpressive. It's lots worse. This doesn't mean that gods don't exist, merely that they (probably) don't exist in the hardware of the universe. I see them as a function of the software of the entities that use language. Possibly they exist in a muted form in most pack animals, or most animals that have protective adults when they are infants. To me it appears that people believe in gods for the same reasons that they believe in telepathy. I.e., evidence back before they could speak clearly indicated that the adults could transfer thoughts from one to another. This shaped a basic layer of beliefs that was later buried under later additions, but never refuted. When one learned language, one learned how to transfer thoughts ... but it was never tied back into the original belief, because what was learned didn't match closely enough to the original model of what was happening. Analogously, when one is an infant the adult that cares for one is seen as the all powerful protector. Pieces of this image become detached memories within the mind, and are not refuted when a more accurate and developed model of the actual parents is created. These hidden memories are the basis around which the idea of a god is created.
Re: An information theoretic measure of reinforcement (was RE: [agi] AGI and Deity)
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have to say that this is only one interpretation of what it would mean for an AGI to experience something, and I for one believe it has no validity at all. It is purely a numeric calculation that makes no reference to what pain (or any other kind of subjective experience) actually is. I would like to hear your definition of pain and/or negative reinforcement. Can you answer the question of whether a machine (say, an AGI or an uploaded human brain) can feel pain? -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=74819484-690b4f
Re: [agi] Worst case scenario
--- Bryan Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 10 December 2007, Matt Mahoney wrote: The worst case scenario is that AI wipes out all life on earth, and then itself, although I believe at least the AI is likely to survive. http://lifeboat.com/ex/ai.shield SIAI has not yet solved the friendliness problem. I posted my views earlier at http://www.mattmahoney.net/singularity.html To summarize, friendliness is not a stable goal once computers start creating smarter versions of themselves. Recursive self improvement is an experimental, competitive, evolutionary process that favors rapid reproduction and acquisition of computing resources, not service to humans. Re: how much computing power is needed for ai. My worst-case scenario accounts for nearly any finite computing power, via the production of semiconductant silicon wafer tech. Now, if the dx on the number of nodes is too low, we may have to start making factories that build factories that build factories that build factories, etc. etc., which would exponentially increase the rate of production of computational nodes, and supposedly there is in fact some finite limit of computational bruteforce required, yes? A human brain sized neural network requires about 10^15 bits of memory and 10^16 operations per second. The Internet already has enough computing power to simulate a few thousand brains. The threshold for a singularity is to surpass the collective intelligence of all 10^10 human brains on Earth. Moore's law allows you to estimate when this will happen, but keep in mind that to double the number of components in a computer, you must also double their reliability. In a fault tolerant network, the second requirement is dropped, so the process is faster. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=74837064-aa09b8
RE: [agi] AGI and Deity
John, For a reply of its short length, given the subject, it was quite helpful in letting me know the type of things you were talking about. Thank you. Ed Porter -Original Message- From: John G. Rose [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 2:41 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: RE: [agi] AGI and Deity Ed, It's a very complicated subject and requires a certain theoretical mental background and somewhat unbiased mindset. Though a biased mindset, for example a person, who is religious, could use the theory to propel their religion into post humanity - maybe a good idea to help preserve humanity - or should that be left up to atheists, who knows. What I mean by conquering cognitive engineering issues I'm just looking for parallels in the development and evolution of human intelligence and its symbiotic relationship with religion and deities. You have to understand what cognitive functions deities contribute and facilitate in the human mind and the civilized set of minds (and perhaps proto and pre human as well as non-human cognition - which is highly speculative and relatively unknown). What are the deitical and religious contributions to cognition and knowledge and how do they facilitate and enable intelligence? Are they actually REQUIRED in some form or another? Again - Are they required for the evolution of human intelligence and for engineering general artificial intelligence? Wouldn't demonstrating that make a guy like Dawkins do some SERIOUS backpedaling :-) The viewpoint of gods representing unknowns is just one aspect of the thing. Keep in mind that there are other aspects. But from the informational perspective a god function as a concept and system of concepts aggregated and representing a highly adaptive and communal entity, incorporated within a knowledge and perceptual framework, with inference weighting spread across informational density, adding open endedness as a crutch, functioning as an altruistic confidence assistor, blah blah, a god(s) function modeled from its loosly isomorphic systems representation in human deities might be used to accomplish the same cognitive things(as well as others), especially representing unknown in a systematic, controllable and actually in its own distributed and intelligent way. There are benefits. Also a major benefit is that it would be a common channel of unknown operative substrate that hooks into human belief networks. John _ From: Ed Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 11:25 AM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: RE: [agi] AGI and Deity John, You implied there might be a very extremely efficient way of conquering certain cognitive engineering issues by using religion in AGIs. Obviously any powerful AGI that deals with a complex and uncertain world like ours would have to have belief systems, but it is not clear to me their would be any benefit in them being religious in any sense that Dawkins is not. So, since you are a smart guy, perhaps you are seeing something I do not. Could you please fill me in? Ed Porter -Original Message- From: John G. Rose [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 12:43 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: RE: [agi] AGI and Deity From: Charles D Hixson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The evidence in favor of an external god of any traditional form is, frankly, a bit worse than unimpressive. It's lots worse. This doesn't mean that gods don't exist, merely that they (probably) don't exist in the hardware of the universe. I see them as a function of the software of the entities that use language. Possibly they exist in a muted form in most pack animals, or most animals that have protective adults when they are infants. To me it appears that people believe in gods for the same reasons that they believe in telepathy. I.e., evidence back before they could speak clearly indicated that the adults could transfer thoughts from one to another. This shaped a basic layer of beliefs that was later buried under later additions, but never refuted. When one learned language, one learned how to transfer thoughts ... but it was never tied back into the original belief, because what was learned didn't match closely enough to the original model of what was happening. Analogously, when one is an infant the adult that cares for one is seen as the
Re: [agi] Worst case scenario
On 11/12/2007, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://lifeboat.com/ex/ai.shield That's quite amusing. Safeguarding humanity against dancing robots. I don't believe that technology is something you can run away from, in a space lifeboat or any other sort of refuge. You just have to try to get along with it and perhaps shape its course if you can. SIAI has not yet solved the friendliness problem. I've always had problems with the concept of friendliness spoken about by folks from SIAI. It seems like a very ill-defined concept. What does friendly to humanity really mean? It seems to mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people (observer relative). A human brain sized neural network requires about 10^15 bits of memory and 10^16 operations per second. Direct comparisons between computing speed and brain activity I also find problematic. People often quote numbers like this without having any idea how they were arrived at. As far as I can discern all roads lead back to Moravec, who based his figures upon the retina observing a TV screen, and admitted that this was a very wobbly estimate potentially subject to a wide margin of error. I think until the essential function of a neuron is known it's really hard to make direct comparisons between what computers do and what brains do. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=74974493-d340fd
[agi] AGI-08 - Call for Participation
The First Conference on Artificial General Intelligence (AGI-08) March 1-3, 2008 at Memphis, Tennessee, USA Early Registration Deadline: January 31, 2008 Conference Website: http://www.agi-08.org Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) research focuses on the original and ultimate goal of AI --- to create intelligence as a whole. AGI seeks to create software or hardware systems that are generally intelligent in roughly the same sense that humans are, rather than being specialized problem-solvers such as most of the systems currently studied in the AI field. Current research in the AGI field is vigorous and diverse, exploring a wide range of possible paths, including theoretical and experimental computer science, cognitive science, neuroscience, and innovative interdisciplinary methodologies. AGI-08 is the very first international conference in this emerging field of science and engineering. The conference is organized with the cooperation of AAAI, and welcomes researchers and students in all relevant disciplines. Different from conventional conferences, AGI-08 is planned to be intensively discussion oriented. All the research papers accepted for publication in the Proceedings (49 papers total) will be available in advance online, so that attendees may arrive prepared to discuss the relevant issues with the authors and each other. The sessions of the conference will be organized to facilitate open and informed intellectual exchange on themes of common interest. Besides the technical discussions, time will also be scheduled at AGI-08 for an exploratory discussion of possible ways to work toward the formation of a more cohesive AGI research community -- including future conferences, publications, organizations, etc. After the two-and-half day conference, there will be a half day workshop on the broader implications of AGI technology, including ethical, sociological and futurological considerations. Yours, Organizing Committee, AGI-08 http://www.agi-08.org/organizing.php - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=75008043-801947
Re: [agi] Worst case scenario
On Tuesday 11 December 2007, Matt Mahoney wrote: --- Bryan Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Re: how much computing power is needed for ai. My worst-case scenario accounts for nearly any finite computing power, via the production of semiconductant silicon wafer tech. A human brain sized neural network requires about 10^15 bits of memory and 10^16 operations per second. The Internet already has enough computing power to simulate a few thousand brains. The Yes, but how much of that computing power is accessible to you? Probably very little at the moment, and even if you had the penetration of the likes of YouTube and other massive websites, you're still only getting a fraction of the computational power of the internet. Again, worst-case: we have to make our own factories. threshold for a singularity is to surpass the collective intelligence of all 10^10 human brains on Earth. I am not so sure that the goal of making ai is the same as making a singularity. But this is probably less relevant. Moore's law allows you to estimate when this will happen, but keep in Or you can make it happen yourself. Make your own fabs. Get the computer nodes you need. Write the software to take advantage of millions of nodes all at once. etc. - Bryan - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=75034625-49cfcc
Re: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
On Dec 11, 2007 7:26 PM, James Ratcliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's a basic abstract I did last year I think: http://www.falazar.com/AI/AAAI05_Student_Abtract_James_Ratcliff.pdf Would like to work with others on a full fledged Reprensentation system that could use these kind of techniques I hacked this together by myself, so I know a real team could put this kind of stuff to much better use. James Do you have any particular path in mind to put this kind of thing to work? Finding patterns is fine, and somewhat inevitable, but what are those ontologies good for, and why? -- Vladimir Nesovmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=75044005-87874a
Re: An information theoretic measure of reinforcement (was RE: [agi] AGI and Deity)
Matt Mahoney wrote: --- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have to say that this is only one interpretation of what it would mean for an AGI to experience something, and I for one believe it has no validity at all. It is purely a numeric calculation that makes no reference to what pain (or any other kind of subjective experience) actually is. I would like to hear your definition of pain and/or negative reinforcement. Can you answer the question of whether a machine (say, an AGI or an uploaded human brain) can feel pain? When I get a chance to finish my consciousness paper. The question of what it is is quite complex. I'll get back to this later. But most people are agreed that just having an algorithm avoid a state is not equivalent to pain. Richard Loosemore - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=75048359-9a2e59
Re: [agi] None of you seem to be able ...
James Ratcliff wrote: What I dont see then, is anywhere where System 2 ( a neural net?) is better than system 1, or where it avoids the complexity issues. I was just giving an example of the degree of flexibility required - the exact details of this example are not important. My point was that dealing with the complex systems problem requires you to explore an extremely lareg range of *architectural* choices, and there is no way that these could be explored by parameter tuning (at least the way that this phrase is being used here). What I am devising is a systematic way to parameterize those architectural choices, but that is orders of magnitude more sophisticated than the kind of paramter tuning that Ben (and others) would talk about. I dont have a goal of system 2 from system one yet. And I can't parse this sentence. Richard Loosemore James */Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: Well, this wasn't quite what I was pointing to: there will always be a need for parameter tuning. That goes without saying. The point was that if an AGI developer were to commit to system 1, they are never going to get to the (hypothetical) system 2 by anything as trivial as parameter tuning. Therefore parameter tuning is useless for curing the complex systems problem. That is why I do not accept that parameter tuning is an adequate response to the problem. Richard Loosemore James Ratcliff wrote: James: Either of these systems described will have a Complexity Problem, any AGI will because it is a very complex system. System 1 I dont believe is strictly practical, as few Truth values can be stored locally directly to the frame. More realistic is there may be a temporary value such as: I like cats t=0.9 Which is calculated from some other backing facts, such as I said I like cats. t=1.0 I like Rosemary (a cat) t=0.8 then parameter tuning will never be good enough, it will have to be a huge and very serious new approach to making our AGI designs flexible at the design level. System 2, though it uses unnamed parameters, would still need to determine these temporary values. Any representation system must have parameter tuning in some form. Either of these systems has the same problem though, of updating the information, such as Seen: I dont like Ganji (a cat) both systems must update their representation to update with this new information. Neither a symbol-system nor a neural network (closest you mean by system 2?) has been shown able to scale up to a larger system needed for an AGI, but neither has been shown ineffective I dont believe either. Whether a system explicity or implicitly stores the information I believe you must be able to ask it the reasoning behind any thought process. This can be done with either system, and may give a very long answer, but once you get a system that makes decicions and cannot explain its reasoning, that is a very scary thought, and it is truly acting irrationaly as I see it. While you cant extract a small portion of the representation from system 1 or two outside of the whole, you must be able to print out the calculated values that a Frame type system shows. James */Richard Loosemore /* wrote: James Ratcliff wrote: However, part of the key to intelligence is **self-tuning**. I believe that if an AGI system is built the right way, it can effectively tune its own parameters, hence adaptively managing its own complexity. I agree with Ben here, isnt one of the core concepts of AGI the ability to modify its behavior and to learn? That might sound like a good way to proceed, but now consider this. System 1: Suppose that the AGI is designed with a symbol system in which the symbols are very much mainstream-style symbols, and one aspect of them is that there are truth-values associated with the statements that use those symbols (as in I like cats, t=0.9). Now suppose that the very fact that truth values were being *explicitly* represented and manipulated by the system was causing it to run smack bang into the Complex Systems Problem. In other words, suppose that you cannot get that kind of design to work because when it scales up the whole truth-value maintenance mechanism just comes apart. System 2: Suppose, further, that the only AGI systems that really do work are ones in which the symbols never use truth values but use other stuff (for which there is no interpretation) and that the thing we call a truth value is actually the result of an
Re: [agi] Worst case scenario
--- Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SIAI has not yet solved the friendliness problem. I've always had problems with the concept of friendliness spoken about by folks from SIAI. It seems like a very ill-defined concept. What does friendly to humanity really mean? It seems to mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people (observer relative). Eliezer S. Yudkowsky has written a fairly precise definition, but again this is not a solution. http://www.singinst.org/upload/CEV.html We should not ignore the problem, but that is precisely what we are doing. Once machines are smarter than us, there will be an intelligence explosion and humans will have no control over it. It will be directed by evolution. A human brain sized neural network requires about 10^15 bits of memory and 10^16 operations per second. Direct comparisons between computing speed and brain activity I also find problematic. People often quote numbers like this without having any idea how they were arrived at. As far as I can discern all roads lead back to Moravec, who based his figures upon the retina observing a TV screen, and admitted that this was a very wobbly estimate potentially subject to a wide margin of error. I think until the essential function of a neuron is known it's really hard to make direct comparisons between what computers do and what brains do. My estimate is based on 10^11 neurons, 10^15 synapses, and an information rate of 10 bits per second per axon. The number of synapses per neuron is based on studies by the IBM Blue Brain project (8000 synapses per neuron in mouse cortex). In most neural models, the information carrying signal is the firing rate, not the individual pulses. But you are right that it is a crude estimate. Cognitive studies of long term memory estimate 10^9 bits. That is also about the quantity of language input by an average adult since birth. One reason for the wide uncertainty (10^6) is that we don't really understand how the brain works. Another is that machines are going to be doing different tasks. Their purpose is not to behave like humans, but to serve humans (at least initially). Many of those tasks (like arithmetic) don't take a lot of computing power. The message posting service I have proposed does not address friendliness at all. It should be benign as long as it can't reprogram the peers. I can't guarantee that won't happen because peers can be arbitrarily configured by their owners. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=75050384-f1d45d
Re: [agi] AGI and Deity
John G. Rose wrote: From: Charles D Hixson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The evidence in favor of an external god of any traditional form is, frankly, a bit worse than unimpressive. It's lots worse. This doesn't mean that gods don't exist, merely that they (probably) don't exist in the hardware of the universe. I see them as a function of the software of the entities that use language. Possibly they exist in a muted form in most pack animals, or most animals that have protective adults when they are infants. To me it appears that people believe in gods for the same reasons that they believe in telepathy. I.e., evidence back before they could speak clearly indicated that the adults could transfer thoughts from one to another. This shaped a basic layer of beliefs that was later buried under later additions, but never refuted. When one learned language, one learned how to transfer thoughts ... but it was never tied back into the original belief, because what was learned didn't match closely enough to the original model of what was happening. Analogously, when one is an infant the adult that cares for one is seen as the all powerful protector. Pieces of this image become detached memories within the mind, and are not refuted when a more accurate and developed model of the actual parents is created. These hidden memories are the basis around which the idea of a god is created. Naturally, this is just my model of what is happening. Other possibilities exist. But if I am to consider them seriously, they need to match the way the world operates as I understand it. They don't need to predict the same mechanism, but they need to predict the same events. E.g., I consider Big Bang cosmology a failed explanation. It's got too many ad hoc pieces. But it successfully explains most things that are observed, and is consistent with relativity and quantum theory. (Naturally, as they were used in developing it...but nevertheless important.) And relativity and quantum theory themselves are failures, because both are needed to explain that which is observable, but they contradict each other in certain details. But they are successful failures! Similar commentary applies to string theory, but with differences. (Too many ad hoc parameters!) Any god that is proposed must be shown to be consistent with the observed phenomena. The Deists managed to come up with one that would do the job, but he never became very popular. Few others have even tried, except with absurdly evident special pleading. Generally I'd be more willing to accept Chariots of the Gods as a true account. And as for moral principles... I've READ the Bible. The basic moral principle that it pushes is We are the chosen people. Kill the stranger, steal his property, and enslave his servants! It requires selective reading to come up with anything else, though I admit that other messages are also in there, if you read selectively. Especially during the periods when the Jews were in one captivity or another. (I.e., if you are weak, preach mercy, but if you are strong show none.) During the later times the Jews were generally under the thumb of one foreign power or another, so they started preaching mercy. One of the things about gods is that they are representations for what the believers don't know and understand. Gods change over time as our knowledge changes over time. That is ONE of the properties of them. The move from polytheistic to monotheistic beliefs is a way to centralize these unknowns for efficiency. You could build AGI and label the unknowns with gods. You honestly could. Magic happens here and combinatorial explosion regions could be labeled as gods. Most people on this email list would frown at doing that but I say it is totally possible and might be a very extremely efficient way of conquering certain cognitive engineering issues. And I'm sure some on this list have already thought about doing that. John But the traditional gods didn't represent the unknowns, but rather the knowns. A sun god rose every day and set every night in a regular pattern. Other things which also happened in this same regular pattern were adjunct characteristics of the sun go. Or look at some of their names, carefully: Aphrodite, she who fucks. I.e., the characteristic of all Woman that is embodied in eros. (Usually the name isn't quite that blatant.) Gods represent the regularities of nature, as embodied in our mental processes without the understanding of how those processes operated. (Once the processes started being understood, the gods became less significant.) Sometimes there were chance associations...and these could lead to strange transformations of myth when things became more understood. In Sumeria the goddess of love was associated with (identified with) the evening star and the god of war was associated with (identified with) the morning star. When knowledge of astronomy advanced it was realized that those two were
Re: [agi] Worst case scenario
--- Bryan Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 11 December 2007, Matt Mahoney wrote: --- Bryan Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Re: how much computing power is needed for ai. My worst-case scenario accounts for nearly any finite computing power, via the production of semiconductant silicon wafer tech. A human brain sized neural network requires about 10^15 bits of memory and 10^16 operations per second. The Internet already has enough computing power to simulate a few thousand brains. The Yes, but how much of that computing power is accessible to you? Probably very little at the moment, As you read this message, your retina is compressing 10^10 bits per second down to about 10^7. Then your visual cortex and hippocampus is cutting it down to about 10 bits per second. All that massive computing power is being used to pick out the tiny bit of useful information from all the clutter. and even if you had the penetration of the likes of YouTube and other massive websites, you're still only getting a fraction of the computational power of the internet. Again, worst-case: we have to make our own factories. Worst case is self replicating factories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo threshold for a singularity is to surpass the collective intelligence of all 10^10 human brains on Earth. I am not so sure that the goal of making ai is the same as making a singularity. But this is probably less relevant. It's not. The singularity is a side effect of AI. I really don't think the extinction of the human race is something we are striving for. But it may be for some, because it will be replaced with something better, for some meanings of better. The question boils down to whether by copying your memories you become the godlike intelligence that replaces humanity. That question hinges on the existence of consciousness. Logically it does not, but belief in consciousness and fear of death is hardwired into every human brain by evolution. Moore's law allows you to estimate when this will happen, but keep in Or you can make it happen yourself. Make your own fabs. Get the computer nodes you need. Write the software to take advantage of millions of nodes all at once. etc. I have described how the software would work. It is well within our technology to write it. The hardware will follow. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=75055472-b0f1d1
Re: An information theoretic measure of reinforcement (was RE: [agi] AGI and Deity)
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Mahoney wrote: --- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have to say that this is only one interpretation of what it would mean for an AGI to experience something, and I for one believe it has no validity at all. It is purely a numeric calculation that makes no reference to what pain (or any other kind of subjective experience) actually is. I would like to hear your definition of pain and/or negative reinforcement. Can you answer the question of whether a machine (say, an AGI or an uploaded human brain) can feel pain? When I get a chance to finish my consciousness paper. The question of what it is is quite complex. I'll get back to this later. But most people are agreed that just having an algorithm avoid a state is not equivalent to pain. Call it utility if you like, but it is clearly a numeric quantity. If you prefer A to B and B to C, then clearly you will prefer A to C. You can make rational choices between, say, 2 of A or 1 of B. You could relate utility to money, but money is a nonlinear scale. A dollar will make some people happier than others, and a million dollars will not make you a million times happier than one dollar. Money also has no utility to babies, animals, and machines, all of which can be trained through reinforcement learning. So if you can propose an alternative to bits as a measure of utility, I am interested to hear about it. I don't believe that the ability to feel pleasure and pain depends on consciousness. That is just a circular definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=75059022-0fd637
[agi] CyberLover passing Turing Test
http://blog.pmarca.com/2007/12/checking-in-on.html === If CyberLover works as described, it will qualify as one of the first computer programs ever written that is actually passing the Turing Test. === - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=75061956-f23a41
Re: [agi] CyberLover passing Turing Test
On Tuesday 11 December 2007, Dennis Gorelik wrote: If CyberLover works as described, it will qualify as one of the first computer programs ever written that is actually passing the Turing Test. I thought the Turing Test involved fooling/convincing judges, not clueless men hoping to get some action? - Bryan - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=75065128-644ffb
RE: [agi] AGI-08 - Call for Participation
Bruce, The following is a good idea Different from conventional conferences, AGI-08 is planned to be intensively discussion oriented. All the research papers accepted for publication in the Proceedings (49 papers total) will be available in advance online, so that attendees may arrive prepared to discuss the relevant issues with the authors and each other. Ed Porter -Original Message- From: Bruce Klein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 4:51 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: [agi] AGI-08 - Call for Participation The First Conference on Artificial General Intelligence (AGI-08) March 1-3, 2008 at Memphis, Tennessee, USA Early Registration Deadline: January 31, 2008 Conference Website: http://www.agi-08.org Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) research focuses on the original and ultimate goal of AI --- to create intelligence as a whole. AGI seeks to create software or hardware systems that are generally intelligent in roughly the same sense that humans are, rather than being specialized problem-solvers such as most of the systems currently studied in the AI field. Current research in the AGI field is vigorous and diverse, exploring a wide range of possible paths, including theoretical and experimental computer science, cognitive science, neuroscience, and innovative interdisciplinary methodologies. AGI-08 is the very first international conference in this emerging field of science and engineering. The conference is organized with the cooperation of AAAI, and welcomes researchers and students in all relevant disciplines. Different from conventional conferences, AGI-08 is planned to be intensively discussion oriented. All the research papers accepted for publication in the Proceedings (49 papers total) will be available in advance online, so that attendees may arrive prepared to discuss the relevant issues with the authors and each other. The sessions of the conference will be organized to facilitate open and informed intellectual exchange on themes of common interest. Besides the technical discussions, time will also be scheduled at AGI-08 for an exploratory discussion of possible ways to work toward the formation of a more cohesive AGI research community -- including future conferences, publications, organizations, etc. After the two-and-half day conference, there will be a half day workshop on the broader implications of AGI technology, including ethical, sociological and futurological considerations. Yours, Organizing Committee, AGI-08 http://www.agi-08.org/organizing.php - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=75073609-2424c8attachment: winmail.dat
Re[4]: [agi] Do we need massive computational capabilities?
Matt, You can feed it with text. Then AGI would simply parse text [and optionally - Google it]. No need for massive computational capabilities. Not when you can just use Google's 10^6 CPU cluster and its database with 10^9 human contributors. That's one of my points: our current civilization gives AGI researcher ability to build AGI prototype on single PC using existing civilization's achievements. Human being cannot be intelligent without surrounding society anyway. We all would loose our mind in less than 10 years if we are totally separated from other intelligent systems. Intelligence simply cannot function fully independently. Bottom line: when building AGI - we should focus on building member for our current civilization. Not fully independent intelligent system. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=75096267-b51b43
Re[2]: [agi] CyberLover passing Turing Test
Bryan, If CyberLover works as described, it will qualify as one of the first computer programs ever written that is actually passing the Turing Test. I thought the Turing Test involved fooling/convincing judges, not clueless men hoping to get some action? In my taste, testing with clueless judges is more appropriate approach. It makes test less biased. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=75096924-6d69b3
